Skip to main content

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: notonmywatchyourenot Date: Oct 13, 2004 1:30pm
Forum: election_2004 Subject: Freedom To Unseat Bush On The March


October 7, 2004


NEW YORK -- If I were to meet Dick Cheney it would not be the first time. And I have always thought he was a sly devil.

“Nice one, Dick!” I thought during the vice presidential debate when he questioned Senator John Edwards attendance record by saying: “I’m up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they’re in session. The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight.”

I was flabbergasted when I learned that was not true. My view of political character is that an honest politician is one who only lies when he has to.

In this case, it was more than not true, it was obviously a deliberate and unnecessary lie. You do not forget meeting people who are after your job.

It is not only politicians who lie in predictable situations. We all do, of course. Honesty is almost always a virtue but there are times where all of us to sin, perhaps when someone asks, “How do I look?”

In matters political, the first witness any observer calls in these matters is that most cynical and clear-headed of thinkers, the real founder of political science, Niccolo Machiavelli. The author of The Prince written in 1513, was probably the first to argue that political character is in the eye, the heart and the ideology of the beholder.

“Everyone understands how praiseworthy it is for a prince to remain true to his word and to live with complete integrity without any scheming,” said Machiavelli.

“However, we’ve seen through experience how many princes in our time have achieved great things who have little cared about keeping their word and have shrewdly known the skill of tricking the minds of men ... A prince doesn’t need to have all the qualities, but it is necessary that he appear to have them. It’s good to appear to be pious, faithful, humane, honest and religious ... as long as one keeps in mind that when the need arises you can and will change into the opposite.”

If you own a television set, you should realize that the people who wanted this war, Cheney prominent among them, were not telling the truth before, are not telling the truth now and will not tell the truth after.

Some of Cheney’s changes are necessary. He had to say, during his debate with Edwards, that he has never suggested there was a terrorism link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida.

If he had told the truth there he would have been seen as a knave and a fool, a judgment I expect history will endorse. But politics happens before history and, as the first Republican president said long ago, you can fool some of the people all of the time.

All that takes is a contempt for the idea of democracy. It does not matter what you tell people if you believe they will probably not understand and probably not care when they realize they were deliberately deceived.

If you own a television set, you should realize that the people who wanted this war, Cheney prominent among them, were not telling the truth before, are not telling the truth now and will not tell the truth after.

That does not necessarily mean that they were wrong to invade Iraq -- I thought they were foolish to do it but that was not a compelling reason to pull back and let containment and sanctions do the job -- but we now know that, to do what they thought was right, they had to deceive us, lying about what they knew and when they knew it.

So, I conclude by citing a lie by our President, an untruth that Senator John Kerry did not rebut in his first debate with George W. Bush. The President twice used the line, “You saw the same intelligence I did before the war...”

That is absurd and it was foolish for Kerry to let it go. I have been around the White House under six presidents and have written, quite extensively, about their decision-making. I know, and so does Bush, that no one, no one at all, sees what a president sees. That is what the classification “Eyes Only” means.

We now know that Bush was a wannabe war president who was holding back a great deal of pre-war intelligence for his own purpose -- and his purpose was to go to war.

Sadly, both President Bush and Vice President Cheney were deliberating deceiving the people of the democracy. There are lies and then there are deliberate lies. They did not trust the people -- and it is for that that they deserve to be thrown out of office next year.


RICHARD REEVES is the author of 12 books, including President Nixon: Alone in the White House. He has written for the New York Times, the New Yorker, Esquire and dozens of other publications.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jackgrimes2004 Date: Oct 14, 2004 1:24am
Forum: election_2004 Subject: Re: Freedom To Unseat Bush On The March

Bush and Cheney are evil men no doubt. But, Kerry is no better. All these politicians are carbon copies of one another. As bad as they are the American system itself is is at fault, it's defective to grow such vile things as Bush and Kerry in the first place.

I want you to make a real difference this November, I want you to vote for JACKSON KIRK GRIMES, with the sure and certain knowledge that with a FASCIST in the White House we shall transform America from a sewer to a paradise.



Ms. Heather Goldsmith